For the SOOC's among us!

[WhoDo]

For the uninitiated, SOOC stands for Straight Out Of Camera and is usually mentioned in disdainful terms by those opposed to "...'shopping" their images. A small admission ... that was ME TOO ... once! Now I can see that SOOC's are really just babes, crying for the milk of human kindness, so here is a little "milk" from a British pro via PetaPixel. Enjoy, SOOC's! :p

http://www.petapixel.com/2013/03/01/getting-it-right-in-the-camera-the-truth-the-myth-the-bs/#more-102808

[I @ M]

Yep, a fairly concise summary of what most properly informed people have known for one heck of a long time.


The notion that film was somewhat more pure than digital is, IMHO, horsesh*t.

That bit especially sums it up.

[Cage]

Interesting read Wazza.

Back in the good old film days, SOOC was generally pretty ordinary, and dodge and burn turned it into something viewable.

Good photographs have always had to start with 'the light', good focus and composition, however the digital era has provided us with much better tools to fine tune the end result.

[extraball]

newbie question/thought: how many of us, turn-off all the in-camera processing? can this even be done? not matter what your settings, wouldn't the camera be "processing" your images wether you like it or not?

[Cage]

newbie question/thought: how many of us, turn-off all the in-camera processing? can this even be done? not matter what your settings, wouldn't the camera be "processing" your images wether you like it or not?

I personally minimise all in-camera processing, and always shoot RAW so I can do my own thing in PP.

[I @ M]

newbie question/thought: how many of us, turn-off all the in-camera processing?

If you are photographing in raw then you have the ability to disable most in camera processing.


can this even be done?

I don't believe that it can be done, after all, digital cameras come with a device called a processor -----


not matter what your settings, wouldn't the camera be "processing" your images wether you like it or not?

If you are photographing in JPEG, yes.

[WhoDo]

I ... always shoot RAW so I can do my own thing in PP.
Now THAT just boggles the mind, Kev! Once those images are in there, there is no getting them out again, either! :lol:

[old dog]

good read Waz. I think the end result, however you get there, is the important thing. If you are happy with it, then everyone else can toddle off to the taxidermist.

[ricktas]

There is a good old thread here on this same topic : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?60189-Professional-Photographers-and-Editing

[WhoDo]

If you are happy with it, then everyone else can toddle off to the taxidermist.
Hehe! I'm just old enough to appreciate the humour in that comment, Graeme! :lol2:

[William]

good read Waz. I think the end result, however you get there, is the important thing. If you are happy with it, then everyone else can toddle off to the taxidermist.


And get St---f-d :lol: Good one Graham, I'll remember that , :th3:

[Cage]

Yeah, good one old dog. :lol2:

I can remember telling someone who was peeing me off that I'd made an appointment for them at the taxidermist, and took much delight at the blank look on their face. :confused013

[sunny6teen]

if I gave you a camera without electronics or even a battery...could you take a properly exposed image?
how much of an image is ours? how much is it the engineers at canon or adobe etc?
do we care? perhaps the final result is all that matters? if so, why as viewers are we continually interested in the back story of how/when an image was taken?

when people argue about film vs digital. I'm not sure if they're actually arguing the medium itself or rather technical cameras vs slr's...and most digital users haven't experienced anything beyond an slr due to costs.
even in the film age, slr's were rubbish (but convenient).
film users will all convert when those digital backs start becoming more affordable.

[I @ M]

if I gave you a camera without electronics or even a battery...could you take an properly exposed image?

Properly exposed, yes, processed to appeal to my and the viewers eyes, NO.



when people argue about film vs digital. I'm not sure if they're actually arguing the medium itself or rather technical cameras vs slr's...and most digital users haven't experienced anything beyond an slr due to costs.

Nobody is actually arguing the film VS digital in this thread, it was all about processing to begin with but seeing as you seem to think it fits the theme ---


even in the film age, slr's were rubbish (but convenient).

Totally agree about convenient, the reference to rubbish though is beyond my comprehension. I must have looked at a lot of rubbish photos over the years if that is the case.



film users will all convert when those digital backs start becoming more affordable.

Film users --- are there any actually left?

[ricktas]

if I gave you a camera without electronics or even a battery...could you take a properly exposed image?
how much of an image is ours? how much is it the engineers at canon or adobe etc?


And Velvia, Provia, Kodak Portra, and more all offered a way to achieve a different result with film, so how much of your film photography is the emulsion engineers at Fuji, Kodak, etc, rather than your skill?

Capturing on film or capturing digitally are just different, a discussion about one being better than the other is just an argument for arguments sake.

[fess67]

Anyone ever looked at the sound engineers station in a recording studio? Holy hell how many different ways can those guys tweak a piece of music??

Now, how many prefer the live version over the recorded one? Sure, a few will but the vast majority will agree that the recorded (processed) audio track is much better. Sure, the singer needs to be able to sing in the first place but after that the processing makes for a finished product. The same is true in photography. :)

[sunny6teen]

the article from the original post is about digital v film. in particular, the myth that film is a purer medium.

anyhow, I'm not an advocate of film as such...just the medium that uses tech cameras (without forking out 40k for digital backs etc).

if you're looking at architecture with slr photos...then yes you must be looking at a lot of rubbish :) the problems are a lot more visible with buildings. slr's are very limited when it comes to moving the focal plane. it was also nice to shoot at f/64

slr's are for portable convenience. otherwise, there'd be no market for digital backs.

[I @ M]

the article from the original post is about digital v film. in particular, the myth that film is a purer medium.

I read it differently, I see an article about "getting it right straight out of the camera" and the references to film are used as an illustration of days gone by, that film and digital are two very different processes ( pun intended ) and that whichever medium is used they both need some form of enhancement to achieve a satisfactory result. Proper attention to exposure, detail and composition are principals that have not altered, simply the processing methods are radically different. I really do not see any "vs" element to the discussion about which medium is best to use to capture an image.


if you're looking at architecture with slr photos...then yes you must be looking at a lot of rubbish :) the problems are a lot more visible with buildings. slr's are very limited when it comes to moving the focal plane.

No, I don't spend a lot of time looking at architectural photos but I have seen some fantastic images done by commercial photographers more than likely using MF / LF gear who specialise in that genre and conversely I have seen some extremely enviable images that I know have been done with an slr, with and without perspective control lenses and I certainly don't regard them as rubbish. I have also seen images that I would consider to be far from optimal taken with all kinds of cameras but to use the term "rubbish" in relation to one particular format of camera smacks of a degree of elitism, snobbery and just a little rude to me.



it was also nice to shoot at f/64

Why is it "nice"?


slr's are for portable convenience.

I kind of think that is possibly one of the primary reasons that they were developed way back when ---- however, time moves on and I reckon that a massive amount of photographers who use them to produce a range of work varying from family snapshots to full blown commercial advertising ventures regard them as more than just "convenient" so I guess the original aim in their creation has been a huge marketing success.



otherwise, there'd be no market for digital backs.

And probably will be for a fair while to come but if I were a gambling type of person looking for longish term returns on the share market I somehow don't think my money would be best spent buying shares in Phase One or Leaf etc. as opposed to someone like Fujifilm -----

Time moves on, some things stay the same, some die out and some flourish.

[Steve Axford]

Anyone ever looked at the sound engineers station in a recording studio? Holy hell how many different ways can those guys tweak a piece of music??

Now, how many prefer the live version over the recorded one? Sure, a few will but the vast majority will agree that the recorded (processed) audio track is much better. Sure, the singer needs to be able to sing in the first place but after that the processing makes for a finished product. The same is true in photography. :)

I prefer the live version with music, like I prefer being there to seeing a photo. I don't think that this is a good analogy as any recording of reality will fall short of the real thing in some way. The comparison seems to be of the unprocessed recorded image vs the processed recorded image. Some music is only processed, Gotya for example, but that is still an exception.

[sunny6teen]

slr's are great for handheld work and they'll get get you shots where you may have missed out without one (I use a couple of them myself) but if you're using a tripod...there are better options available.
better system...better glass.
I'm always amused by the canon/nikon tirades because I don't particular rate either.

the article is about sooc images however the paragraph containing The notion that film was somewhat more pure than digital is, IMHO, horsesh*t is most certainly banging the film v digital drum. I agree with the article but I think it's confusing it's argument with film itself and not the system used to take it.
a tech camera takes a better image sooc than any slr and thus requires less processing. no focus stacking, blending different exposures or alien skin exposure software etc.... that stuff occurs when taking the shot. adobe is helping us compensate for the slr's poorness.
it is elitism if you're referring to the system and not the photographer.

...and before this slanging match goes to a tiebreak game...can I at least assume you've had some experience with tech cameras to give your argument for slr's some validity?

[Lance B]

I think the end result, however you get there, is the important thing. If you are happy with it, then everyone else can toddle off to the taxidermist.

Exactly! :th3:

[Steve Axford]

a tech camera takes a better image sooc than any slr and thus requires less processing. no focus stacking, blending different exposures or alien skin exposure software etc.... that stuff occurs when taking the shot. adobe is helping us compensate for the slr's poorness.



er - how does a "tech camera" eliminate the need for focus stacking? You can do what you like with tilting the sensor/film, but you still only have a limited dof to work with. I can't see that this has anything to do with slr.

[I @ M]

Somehow I think that we are reading things here totally differently to each other, all I see is an article that shovels scorn at digital camera users who label images "SOOC" and equally at those who espouse the superiority of film.

You on the other hand seem to see me as "defending" or being a fan of the slr camera above all else and denigrating any other format, nothing could be further from the truth because I simply do not care what is used to achieve an image.
That extends from Holgas to Hassleblads and Pentaxs to Polaroids. If the end result works for the viewer it doesn't matter what camera produced the image. My views extend to the processing side of things as well, if the end image works then that is all that matters.

No, I have no more than very limited experience of being at the controls of "tech" cameras, one of the reasons is that I see no need for them for the type of photography that I do, which incidentally is becoming more and more tripod reliant, which I and others appreciate.

Better images are a very subjective thing and if one were to display the same subject taken with a (insert brand, format tech camera here ) and a ( insert brand, model compact camera here ) and without knowing which camera produced which image ( or even that two different cameras produced the different images ) I and or others felt that the "better" image came from the compact then the elitist notion that tech cameras produce better images becomes, ( to borrow a phrase ) IMHO, horsesh*t.

[sunny6teen]

cheers Steve. I can see what you're hinting at.
although something like advertising was what I had in mind and being able to change the focal plane to keep the entire subject sharp.
you're right though. that really only suits a subject where it has the same lines as the focal plane. it's not going work out as well with unusual shapes like flowers etc.
but of course you can still stop down a lot more before diffraction becomes a concern.
why I mentioned it is because the t/s lenses are unable to combine movements.

I wish canon etc would lay off the video development/research and knuckle down on the basics first.

[Steve Axford]

Well, you can stop down more with MF/LF but you need to coz the same fstop gives you (much) less dof. In general, the greater the resolution, the less dof you will get. ie there is no free lunch. You get the best dof with the crummy little cameras with tiny sensors. Sad but true. A video photographer has made a video camera and lenses that allow you to have enormous dof. He doesn't say how he does it, but I'll bet it isn't by using a large sensor. In this case the "tech camera" will be the equivalent of a mobile phone.

[arthurking83]

......

I wish canon etc would lay off the video development/research and knuckle down on the basics first.

I can't see how the development of video ability in recent designs has stifled the technological advance of cameras in any way.

Realistically video and the basics are separate and mututally exclusive engineering paths, and one needn't hinder the progress of the other.

In fact it could be argued that developing video capable DSLRs may be leading the cameras into new and improved performance anyhow! Sensor noise in long exposures, memory capacities and the bandwidth of buffer to card improvements. Video demands much more on these two hardware systems.

I can't see any area of basic functionality in current DSLR designs that have gone by the wayside due to video feature improvements.


BTW and FWIW: I'm actually a big fan of SOOC myself. I simply try to capture the best image I can at the time of exposure. My personal favourite images of mine are usually the ones that I don't have to process much, other than the simple steps I can do on the PC/Camera. Of course this is rare, but that has been and still is my main goal with my gear.

[sunny6teen]

yeah I was only referring that stopping down wasn't a disadvantage. the dof in 35mm and LF are the same because LF lenses are optimal at around f/16 f/32 or so.
you need to stop down anyway so it balances it out.
once you start making movements you have the advantage of keeping your subject sharp from front to back without focus stacking.
being unable to keep something like a fence sharp (unless it's on the horizontal plane) with an slr was my point.
hence why I'm thinking that a camera with movements provides better sooc images than an slr. less work to do in post and those retouchers don't come cheap :D


Well, you can stop down more with MF/LF but you need to coz the same fstop gives you (much) less dof. In general, the greater the resolution, the less dof you will get. ie there is no free lunch. You get the best dof with the crummy little cameras with tiny sensors. Sad but true. A video photographer has made a video camera and lenses that allow you to have enormous dof. He doesn't say how he does it, but I'll bet it isn't by using a large sensor. In this case the "tech camera" will be the equivalent of a mobile phone.

[Steve Axford]

yeah I was only referring that stopping down wasn't a disadvantage. the dof in 35mm and LF are the same because LF lenses are optimal at around f/16 f/32 or so.
you need to stop down anyway so it balances it out.
once you start making movements you have the advantage of keeping your subject sharp from front to back without focus stacking.
being unable to keep something like a fence sharp (unless it's on the horizontal plane) with an slr was my point.
hence why I'm thinking that a camera with movements provides better sooc images than an slr. less work to do in post and those retouchers don't come cheap :D

Sounds like you are just using the advantages of your camera. That's sensible, but it doesn't mean the camera doesn't have disadvantages - and poor dof is one. For some limited applications you can use tilt, but that won't work for most macros, so you are left with focus stacking. Don't get a lot of fences in macros.